Wednesday, February 6, 2013

In December of 2011, Clark Roberts and Sean Howley, two engineers at Wyko Tire Technology, were convicted by a jury for stealing trade secrets, a crime under the federal Economic Espionage Act (EEA). The trade secrets related to Goodyear's tire-assembly machine technology. Roberts and Howley had access to this technology because Wyko was a supplier to Goodyear. Wyko had been approached by a Chinese company, HaoHua, to supply a number of tire-building parts and stood to benefit greatly from this supply contract.

There was a problem, however. Wyko wasn't quite sure how to do the job, and its draft designs had serious problems. So when Goodyear asked Wyko to repair some tire-assembly machines, Roberts and Howley saw an opportunity and took photographs of some key devices used on the Goodyear machines. These photos (presumably) were going to help Wyko close its knowledge deficit and avoid potential penalties under its supply agreement with HaoHua. Wyko uncovered the improper activity, alerted Goodyear, and Roberts and Howley eventually were convicted.

Earlier this week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the EEA convictions, but found that the sentences imposed were procedurally improper. At trial, federal prosecutors had pushed for the engineers to receive at least ten months in prison. But some of the testimony backfired, as Goodyear's expert witness arguably did not document his economic loss calculations that well. Federal law allows a court to consider a victim's economic loss as a result of the crime, which makes sense in a crime that is essentially financial. In this case, the loss would have been the impact on the value of Goodyear's trade secrets.

As a result of the testimony and mitigating evidence presented by the defendants, the district court sentenced Roberts and Howley to home confinement, community service, and probation.

The Sixth Circuit found that wasn't correct. It held the district court did not account for a "reasonable estimate" of Goodyear's loss. In particular, the court noted that even the low-end estimates offered by Goodyear yielded a sentencing guideline within the range of 3 to 4 years in prison. Also, the district court's finding of, essentially, "no loss" was inconsistent with the element of the crime that the stolen trade secret have some independent economic value from its secrecy. As a result, the district court needed to provide an estimate of economic loss and the reasons for its findings.

The case is significant, in my mind, for three reasons. First, Judge Sutton's analysis affirming the EEA convictions gives a nice summary of security measures that companies often undertake when dealing with vendors who have access to confidential information. Second, the case itself (apart from the issues on appeal) demonstrates the increasing specter of criminal liability in cases of trade secrets theft - particularly when the theft is intended to benefit companies outside the United States. And third, the decision shows that district court's have wide latitude, and an independent obligation, to assess a victim's economic loss even if the victim itself presents an estimate that might not be admissible under the rules of evidence.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Follow Me on Twitter

About Me

Ken Vanko is a Member at Clingen Callow & McLean, LLC in the Chicago area. For the past 15 years, he has concentrated a majority of his business law practice in the field of unfair competition and business transitions, litigating and advising clients on matters related to non-competition agreements, trade secrets, and fiduciary duties of loyalty.
He can be contacted by phone at 630-871-2600 and by e-mail at vanko[at]ccmlawyer[dot]com.

Search This Blog

Loading...

Disclaimer & Terms of Use

The commentary, information, opinions and analyses conveyed on this site by the author do not constitute legal advice and shall not be construed as such. Entries may or may not be updated following the time of original posting.

This blog may be considered attorney advertising under the applicable rules of professional conduct. By using this site, you understand that the information contained is not provided for the purpose of rendering legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. The author will not provide legal advice without entering into a formal attorney-client relationship. The viewpoints expressed on this site are those of the author only and not those of Clingen Callow & McLean, LLC, its Members or its clients.

Copyright Notice

All postings and other related content on this website are the property of Kenneth J. Vanko, and are protected by federal copyright law and other restrictions. The author expressly prohibits the copying of any protected materials on this website, except for the purposes of fair use.

Client Engagements

If you want to enter into an attorney-client relationship, we'll need to clear up a few administrative details first.

(1) The first step is for me to clear conflicts of interest. You do not want to disclose any sensitive information to me if I already represent a party adverse to you.

(2) Every relationship requires a signed engagement letter between you and my firm. That engagement letter will outline critical terms and the scope of our representation.

I assist clients every day who have problems related to business transitions, employment terminations and competitive disputes. Do not be afraid to write or call me about whether an attorney-client relationship makes sense for you. It might or it might not, but there is no harm in asking.

A word about legal fees. No, I don't work for free, but our rates, options and fee structures are very competitive. I will be happy to discuss with you our hourly rates, fixed-fee options, and preliminary budgets for the type of service you require.

E-Mail Policy

I receive e-mails every day from readers of this site and I welcome what each and everyone has to say. But I cannot provide legal advice without entering into a formal attorney-client relationship. Also, I ask that you not send me confidential information until a formal engagement is in place. It is imperative that I clear a conflict of interest prior to representing any client. That said, I am always interested in hearing about the general nature of your legal problem to see if an advisory relationship makes sense for us. But no matter what you say, I always respond to e-mail and will get back to you by the next business day unless I am on a rare vacation.